Article with comments by BCS coordinator discussing the possibility that a plus one idea would be discussed in March.However any possible implementation would probably not be possible until after 2010 at the earliest.Link at http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/news/story?id=2724819

why does the pac 10 follow the big 10 around even though it would seem that the pac 10 has been hurt by the bcs more than any other big conference? could someone please explain that to me? the big 10 has clearly benefited from the bcs more than any other conference especially due to their 11 team format, where it seems like the best teams never play each other thus giving them an unfair advantage over bcs at large bids!

why does the pac 10 follow the big 10 around even though it would seem that the pac 10 has been hurt by the bcs more than any other big conference? could someone please explain that to me? the big 10 has clearly benefited from the bcs more than any other conference especially due to their 11 team format, where it seems like the best teams never play each other thus giving them an unfair advantage over bcs at large bids!

Boy, are you right on the money with this comment! No Ohio State-Wisconsin game last year. Huge advantage.

For all the comments last year about Notre Dame not being able to win against the top teams, there was little mention of the fact that USC went out & lost to UCLA the following week. That ND game was a high pressure match-up for USC & took a lot out of them regardless of the score. As a result, they had a letdown the following week.

USC was just one of the Pac Ten teams that played a brutal schedule last year. Arkansas on the road to open the season, Notre Dame late in the season. Was Tennesse their thirs OOC game? It was somebody good. AND they played 9 conference games. There was never a let up for them all season the way there was for Ohio State against a weak Big Ten schedule, made even weaker by eliminating Wisconsin from the schedule. They should have the guts to just go out & play 10 conference games.

why does the pac 10 follow the big 10 around even though it would seem that the pac 10 has been hurt by the bcs more than any other big conference? could someone please explain that to me? the big 10 has clearly benefited from the bcs more than any other conference especially due to their 11 team format, where it seems like the best teams never play each other thus giving them an unfair advantage over bcs at large bids!

Boy, are you right on the money with this comment! No Ohio State-Wisconsin game last year. Huge advantage.

For all the comments last year about Notre Dame not being able to win against the top teams, there was little mention of the fact that USC went out & lost to UCLA the following week. That ND game was a high pressure match-up for USC & took a lot out of them regardless of the score. As a result, they had a letdown the following week.

USC was just one of the Pac Ten teams that played a brutal schedule last year. Arkansas on the road to open the season, Notre Dame late in the season. Was Tennesse their thirs OOC game? It was somebody good. AND they played 9 conference games. There was never a let up for them all season the way there was for Ohio State against a weak Big Ten schedule, made even weaker by eliminating Wisconsin from the schedule. They should have the guts to just go out & play 10 conference games.

I agree. But in answer to your question about the Pac 10, for one thing the Pac 10 commish is a spineless wimp who needs to be replaced. Another reason would be the academic sharing (I think this is right, but not certain. Perhaps Pounder can shed some light on this) & tradition that the Pac 10 & Big Ten have had together. Pounder can verify most of this information.

Play-off is a DISASTER.........if you are in favor of a play-off....then post exactly how much YOU SPENT on traveling to BOWL GAMES last year. How about the year before? and the year before that? And how much you are going to spend to travel to a Bowl Game THIS YEAR? and next year? and the year after that?..........It simply will be the biggest DUD that ever happened in sports. Ever to happen to higher education in America. If all you bored NFL fans want a playoff, then lobby the NFL to extend their season and double the number of teams so you can watch 3 full months of playoffs.

NOT a single person has ever thought about the "quality" of those games. Or how will they be paid for? Do anyone of you (or are all the posters just kids under 40 still living at home?) have any idea what it costs to have a stadium? Just to have a game, ANY GAME in a stadium? How much the insurance premium is for a game? Or the electric bill? or the security costs? or, etc., etc. Do any of you realize how much money is LOST in CFB? In college sports in general? Take a look at all these DUMB conference "Championship" games.....how much money do they LOSE? If it weren't for TV it would be totally prohibitive to put those games on. Another thing, when you all get your beloved playoff, do any of you think WHERE these so-called "Semi-professional" Pre-NFL matchups will be played? Do you think all the northern shools ALWAYS want to be treated UNFAIRLY? I mean, afterall, isn't this entire "play-off" banter all about "fairness" in crowing an "undisputed" National Champion?

So you want a National Championship Playoff, don't you? Let's see a nice scenario......it's January and d**n freezing in the artic as #4 seeded Florida is playing the second round in #1 seeded Columbus. But OSU will be derided for being voted #1 and getting home-field advantage for the entire playoff round. Of course nobody from #8 seeded Miami showed up for the first round and it was TOTALLY OSU crowd, (too freezing cold and too few alums(Miami is a small private school with few real boosters and just a lot of media NFL fans who buy a shirt but nothing else). Not to mention that USC is terrified to schedule a big game outside of LA so they are protesting that they would have to travel an extremely hostile undefeated WVU in January. Just because WVU ended up going 12-0 in the Big East and was seeded ahead of a 1-loss PAC 10 USC. Get the picture? This isn't going to be pretty. And there will be MORE pregnant doging, moaning and complaining than there ever was in this BCS "system". Just go back to the independent bowls like years past and let them work out a schedule. Or at the MOST, make it a Plus-One AFTER all the traditional bowls are played on New Year's Day. All the bowls will be even MORE relevant and sell MORE tickets. There will be MORE TV viewership. Then the politicking can start AFTER the bowls but there wil be more information to vote in the opinion polls about who should be playing for all the marbles in 2 or 3 weeks. It would come down to maybe 3 or 4 teams, but probably most likely only 2 will really stand out and get the most votes.

Just like this year.....1-loss USC vs. 1-loss Penn State, both can make an arguement for the NC Bowl, with Penn State having the biggest advantage over anybody except perhaps TX. Then there is 2-loss OSU vs. 1-loss TX in the Fiesta Bowl. Lastly put 1-loss Florida (SEC Champ) in the Sugar Bowl with 1-loss OK. Which should be switched with TX, thus OK who "wins" the Big 12 CCG in the Fiesta vs. 2-loss OSU. Utah? Well, I suppoe they get screwed unless of course a 5th bowl were considered in the BCS ("playoff") Selection Bowl....say Cotton, or another bowl(Gator, Sun, etc. Then Utah (or another non-BCS conference) gets a shot at a top ranked team to make a case for or aginst them to be considered in the top 2. There may even be a matchup of 12-0 Utah playing OK or TX instead of 10-2 OSU. That would narrow the field to just 3 major traditional bowl games: Rose -PSU/USC; Fiesta - OK/Utah; Sugar - TX/UF. It's still an arguement in the making, but at least each of these teams can make a statement on the field one last time. In some years, the 1 and 2 will be probably very evident, even before the bowl games and certainly after the bowl games.

The bottom line is that before you ever see a "playoff" you will first see a Plus-One. It essentially is a "play-off" but on a more reduced scale and without the massive loss of revenue and interest. The regular season remains as relevant as ever. The bowls become even MORE relevant. the excitement and fan interest is heightened. It's an all-around winner. If this sceanario works out 3 of 4 times, it will be the way things are for decades to come, if not permanent. If it doesn't work more than half the time, without major controversy, then it will get tweeked to include a full 4 game "playoff". At that time if that occurs I also foretell the creation of a players association ("union") demanding just compensation in one form or another. Which many of the "smaller" CFB schools will abandon the media frenzy and non-alum culture and recreate a more perfect union. And the traditionalists can enjoy CFB the way it was created in the first place. While the Pre-NFL fans can have there "playoff" and eat it too.

easterncffan, the plus one is not even a band aid to the current mess we have with college football. The very same issues will exist in a plus one. A plus one is basically taking college basketball and picking the final four before have the 64 or 65 brackets square off.

The argument that Delany uses that a college football playoff will impact the regular season is a joke.

If they only take the conference champions in an 8 team playoff, there would be more emphases placed on the regular season that the current system.

AS for Delany, he has a boss which is the 11 Presidents of the Big Ten and most of those have a boss in government.

There will be a playoff very soon and every just needs to get ready.

The days of unfair and a terrible college football post season is just about behind us.

I am die hard college football fan and can hardly wait until the BCS is a bust.

Most important the 8 or 16 playoff does not have to replace the bowls. They basically become the NIT which is appropriate because they are more about money that teams that actually deserve to play.

While you (easterncfbfan) cite a long laundry list of why nots, the FCS (former 1AA) have had a playoff format that has worked a long time. If it is so ill, why do they keep repeating it? These schools have exams, travel costs, etc. as do FBS/BCS schools.
There is one thing that is keeping the the playoff from happening: BOWLS, and all that go with it.
The problem is simple. They keep trying to anoint a national champion with a poll/computer based system and keep it all within the bowl framework. It doesn't work, certainly not cleanly; and those rare years it has reduced controversy, it's still flawed.

Last edited by louisvillecard01 on Sat Dec 13, 2008 2:25 pm, edited 1 time in total.

While you (easterncfbfan) cite a long laundry list of why nots, the FCS (former 1AA) have had a playoff format that has worked a long time. If it is so ill, why do they keep repeating it? These schools have exams, travel costs, etc. as do FBS/BCS schools.
There is one thing that is keeping the the playoff from happening: BOWLS, and all that go with it.
The problem is simple. They keep trying to anoint a national champion with a poll/computer based system and keep it all within the bowl framework. It doesn't work, certainly not cleanly; and those rare years it has reduced controversy, it's still flawed.

Agreed. Two year ago, I booked a flight from LA to Missoula for the Umass/montana semifinal game, got my game tickets through UMass. All just a day or so after the game was announced. It's 2008...travel is a breeze...no more horse and carriage across the frontier.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot post attachments in this forum